Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Fitbit MCP

Fitbit MCP

by davidmosiah
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Update Shared Wellness Profile

fitbit_profile_update

Update your Fitbit wellness profile with partial patches, requiring explicit user confirmation to save and blocking sensitive fields.

Instructions

Persist a partial patch to the canonical Delx Wellness profile. Requires explicit_user_intent=true after the user confirms they want to save. Rejects secret-like fields (oauth, token, api_key, password, cookie, refresh, session).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "patch": "<patch>"
    },
    "name": "fitbit_profile_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
patchYesPartial WellnessProfileDocument patch. Top-level keys: profile, goals, devices, training, nutrition, preferences, safety, notes.
response_formatNomarkdown
explicit_user_intentNoSet to true ONLY after the user has explicitly confirmed they want to save this. Otherwise the tool refuses to write.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.4.11
  2. Removedv0.4.6
  3. First observedv0.4.5

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond annotations (which are minimal), the description adds critical behavioral context: the need for user intent and filtering of sensitive fields. However, it doesn't detail merge behavior or success/error responses.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three succinct sentences with no fluff; the first sentence establishes the core purpose immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a write tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers safety and data sensitivity, though it omits mention of return values or errors.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema covers 67% of parameters with descriptions, the description adds value by explaining that the patch is partial and that secret-like fields are rejected, which is not in schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('persist a partial patch') and the resource ('canonical Delx Wellness profile'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that are mostly read-only or auth-related.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly requires explicit_user_intent=true after user confirmation and specifies rejection of secret-like fields, but does not mention alternatives or when not to use among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools